Anser Umar Farooq

The defendants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a consent judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.

They alleged that the plaintiff lender had agreed to hold the consent judgment in escrow and not enforce it, and raised additional arguments concerning the validity of default interest under the Interest Act.

The court held that Rule 59.06 is limited to circumstances where fraud in obtaining the judgment is established and does not permit the court to revisit the correctness of the judgment itself.

The defendants failed to prove that any representation was made that the consent judgment would not be enforced, and the alleged oral arrangement was inconsistent with the written agreements and the parties’ conduct.

The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.

Following an undercover internet child exploitation operation, the accused responded to an online personal advertisement and engaged in extensive email and phone communications with a person presented as a 14-year-old girl.

He attended the arranged meeting location carrying items that closely matched the content of the communications, including condoms, cash, hotel information, and perfume.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's explanation that he had merely discovered the emails and attended to investigate.

Relying on the elements of the offence set out in Legare, the court held that the Crown proved intentional computer communication with a person believed to be under 16 for the purpose of facilitating sexual touching, and entered a finding of guilt.

This costs endorsement followed summary judgment motions arising from a failed sale of a machine shop business and related limitations and pleading issues.

The successful plaintiff sought partial or substantial indemnity costs after defeating motions alleging the action was statute-barred, disclosed no cause of action, and failed to raise a genuine issue for trial on a counterclaim.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, held that fairness and reasonableness governed, and found no special circumstances justifying substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $22,007.17 were awarded, with pre-judgment interest, apportioned two-thirds to one defendant and one-third to another.

Following a voir dire in a criminal prosecution involving online luring allegations, the court considered whether the accused's videotaped police statement was voluntary and admissible.

The accused alleged psychological pressure and relied on the circumstances of arrest and police questioning, but withdrew the Charter application under ss. 10(a) and 10(b).

Applying the confessions rule and the operating mind requirement, the court found no threats, promises, oppressive conditions, or impairment of cognitive capacity sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The videotaped statement was admitted into evidence.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's contempt findings and the associated costs award of $40,000 on a full indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt findings, noting they were supported by the evidentiary record and adverse credibility findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding costs, reducing the $40,000 award to $25,000, as the original amount exceeded the respondent's claimed costs and was disproportionate to the appellant's costs.

Other costs rulings were confirmed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from the alleged purchase of a machining business and sought judgment on a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to transfer shares, undisclosed tax liabilities, and other equitable claims including unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

The court held that the record disclosed genuine issues for trial regarding whether the shares were ever transferred, whether misrepresentations were made, and whether the plaintiff’s claim was discoverable only after learning of the alleged misconduct in 2010.

The court also found the claim was not statute‑barred under the Limitations Act due to the discoverability principle and possible fraudulent concealment.

Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The husband brought a motion seeking increased access to the children and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The wife sought exclusive possession of the home and interim child and spousal support based on imputed income.

The court ordered the matrimonial home sold, finding that maintaining the property was economically unsustainable regardless of the husband’s income and that the wife failed to establish a compelling reason to prevent sale.

Interim spousal and child support were ordered based on an imputed income of $60,000 for the self‑employed husband, and structured access was granted with exchanges occurring at a police station due to bail conditions arising from pending assault charges.

The parties achieved mixed success and no costs were ordered.

Following findings of civil contempt for repeated breaches of court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the appropriate sanction.

The applicant had wilfully breached multiple orders governing access to premises, removal of goods, and payment of heating costs.

Applying Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing contempt sanctions, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation where there is a pattern of disregard for court authority.

Given the applicant’s persistent non‑compliance, lack of remorse, and likelihood of continued breaches, the court struck the applicant’s application for relief from forfeiture and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Additional monetary sanctions were ordered pursuant to a prior consent order.

A landlord brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against a tenant corporation and its principal for alleged breaches of multiple court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The court considered whether the orders were clear and unequivocal, whether the respondents deliberately and wilfully disobeyed them, and whether contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found several deliberate breaches, including denying the landlord access to the premises, entering the premises contrary to a court order, removing non‑perishable items when only perishables were permitted, failing to remove perishable goods as ordered, and failing to pay heating costs required by a consent order.

The court declined to find contempt in certain instances where the evidence created reasonable doubt about deliberate breach.

The respondents were found in contempt of multiple orders and the issue of penalty and costs was adjourned.

Following a prior finding of contempt of a court order, the court addressed costs and sentencing.

The mother sought $15,033 in costs (or alternatively $10,880), while the father argued costs should not exceed $1,500 given his modest financial means.

The court applied the factors under the Family Court Rules and found the father's wilful breach of the court order constituted reprehensible conduct.

While considering the father's limited financial means and custody of the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 payable at $800 per month.

For sentencing, the court rejected changing custody and access orders as punishment but ordered the father to submit to family counselling with a specified therapist, with the father bearing the cost of the first five sessions and thereafter sharing costs equally with the mother.

Following an earlier ruling converting an application into an action due to material factual disputes and an incomplete evidentiary record, the court addressed costs.

The successful responding party sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $37,000, arguing the proceeding had been unnecessary.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found the claimed costs excessive in light of the relatively straightforward issues and inflated hourly charges and time entries by junior counsel.

While the successful party was entitled to costs, the court reduced the requested amount significantly and declined to award any costs to the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at a reduced sum payable by the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiffs, Nashaat and Taghreed Aly, claimed a partnership interest in a family grocery business, Nader Halal, operated by Adel Tohamy.

The court found a valid oral agreement from 2001 granting the Alys a 20% interest.

In a related family law application, Adel's former wife, Naiema, sought to set aside two separation agreements that released her claims to the family businesses and spousal support.

The court set aside both agreements under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to Adel's deliberate failure to disclose significant assets, unconscionability, and duress.

The court also found the defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence by destroying financial records and ordered the appointment of a receiver over the businesses pending the damages phase of the trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for wilfully breaching a temporary access order by denying her access to their two children on two occasions.

The father argued he was legally justified because the children were traumatized after allegedly seeing the mother's boyfriend, who was restricted from being near them.

The court rejected the father's justification, noting his evidence completely changed after the mother produced video surveillance contradicting his initial claims.

The court found the father's actions were part of a campaign to undermine the mother's relationship with the children and found him in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The mother brought a contempt motion against the father for wilfully breaching a court-ordered access order by blocking her access to the parties' two children on November 14 and November 16, 2012.

The father claimed he was legally justified in denying access because the older child had allegedly been traumatized after seeing the mother's boyfriend in the apartment building on November 12, 2012.

The court found the father's evidence to be unreliable and contradicted by surveillance video, witness testimony, and the child's counselling report.

The court concluded that the father had fabricated his justification and was motivated by his dislike of the mother's boyfriend and his desire to undermine the mother-child relationship.

The court found the father in contempt of the access order without legal justification.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to convert an application into an action under Rule 14.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying application sought enforcement of a loan agreement and registration of a second mortgage against property.

The moving party argued that material facts were in dispute regarding the validity of the loan agreement, alleged misrepresentations, authority of corporate signatories, and the amount of indebtedness.

The court held that the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts and was incomplete, including missing evidence from key signatories and allegations that required viva voce evidence.

Because the issues could not be properly determined on the application record alone, the court ordered the application converted into an action.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that the respondent lawyer breached the deemed undertaking rule by sharing information about a writ against the appellant with another respondent.

The application judge found no breach because the assignment of the writ occurred before the correspondence disclosing the writ and settlement negotiations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the respondent lawyer should not have appeared as counsel since he was a named respondent and his conduct was central to the case.

The accused was charged with theft under $5,000 arising from an incident at a Walmart store where she allegedly left the store with unpaid merchandise.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of a loss prevention officer who observed the accused placing items into her shopping cart and then leaving without paying for them.

The accused testified that she was distracted by young children and urgent medical appointments, and that unpaid items had been placed in the cart by her children or had become concealed beneath a baby car seat.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to steal and dismissed the charge.

A Charter application alleging breach of section 7 rights due to lost surveillance video was also dismissed.

The moving party sought an order permitting him to secure a line of credit or mortgage on the jointly owned matrimonial home for $400,000 to fund legal fees for an upcoming trial involving family and corporate claims.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found this to be a highly unusual case where encumbering the matrimonial home was justified, given the substantial other assets available to satisfy any potential judgment for the respondent.

The court granted the motion but limited the encumbrance to $250,000, subject to specific terms including that the funds be paid directly into counsel's trust account.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a Florida default judgment in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between Florida, the claim, and the appellant.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish defences of fraud or denial of natural justice, and that the Florida judgment was final for enforcement purposes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court provided procedural directions for a consolidated trial involving corporate oppression claims, family law claims, and disputes over alleged ownership interests in several companies and properties.

Multiple parties proposed competing structures for the order in which the issues should be tried.

The court held that the determination of ownership interests in the companies and properties must occur first before any remedies could be considered, as premature remedies could prejudice other parties’ claims.

The court rejected a proposal to resolve one party’s oppression action in its entirety before the others and instead structured the trial into staged phases addressing ownership, family law and corporate claims, and finally remedies.

The court also imposed strict deadlines for motions, disclosure, and examinations prior to trial.